The
storage and generation of electricity is a hotbed of scientific study
around the world. New and improved methods of storing electricity
have a myriad of potential uses from phones and laptops that run
longer to new electric vehicles with much greater driving range.

At
the center of much of the research in the storage and generation of
power in batteries and other devices are carbon nanotubes. The carbon
nanotube has been studied for decades and new advances over the last
few years have made the nanotubes easier to produce and have offered
breakthroughs in the use of carbon nanotubes. Scientists at Rice
University made a breakthrough in carbon
nanotube processing in November of 2009 that uses processes
similar to those that have been employed in the plastics industry to
make the production of carbon nanotubes in bulk much
easier.

Researchers in late 2009 also found that defective
carbon nanotubes are more efficient at storing energy than
carbon nanotubes that are uniform in size. In February 2010, Bayer
announced that it was opening the world's
largest carbon nanotube production facility to develop
carbon nanotubes dubbed "Baytubes" using multi-wall carbon
nanotube technology. The facility is expected to produce about 200
metric tons of nanotubes each year.

Now, a team of researchers
at MIT have announced that they have made a new
breakthrough for producing electricity with carbon
nanotubes. The discovery may one day lead to a myriad of new devices
such as sensors the size of dust that can be dispersed in air to
monitor the environment or the tech might lead to implantable devices
that produce their own power. The researchers discovered a phenomenon
that was previously unknown that produces powerful waved of energy
that shoots though carbon nanotubes, producing electricity.

The
team of researchers called the phenomenon "thermopower waves."
MIT's Michael Strano, the Charles and Hilda Roddey Professor of
Chemical Engineering, and senior author of the paper reporting the
findings said, "[Thermopower waves] opens up a new area of
energy research, which is rare."

The thermal wave is a
moving pulse of heat that travels along the microscopic carbon
nanotubes and drives electrons along with it creating an electrical
current. The team coated carbon nanotubes with a highly reactive fuel
that produces heat as it decomposes. The fuel was ignited at one end
of the nanotube with a laser beam or high-voltage spark.

The
resulting ignition created a fast moving thermal wave that travels
about 10,000 times faster than the normal speed of the reaction
according to the team. The temperature of the ring of heat reaches
about 3,000 kelvins, pushing electrons along the tube creating a
substantial electrical current. Strano says that the combustion waves
have been mathematically studied for more than a hundred years, but
he claims to be the first to predict that the combustion waves could
be guided by a nanotube or nanowire and push an electrical current
along the wire.

Strano says, "[In early experiments] lo
and behold, we were really surprised by the size of the resulting
voltage peak." He continued saying, "There's something else
happening here. We call it electron entrainment since part of the
current appears to scale with wave velocity.

Strano says that
since the discovery is so new it is hard to predict how it could be
used in practical application. The team plans to conduct more
research using different kinds of reactive materials for the fuel
coating and the team suspects that by using other materials for the
coating the front of the wave could oscillate to produce an
alternating current. The team points out that most of the power
generated with the new method is given off as light and heat and work
is ongoing to make the process more efficient.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Asbestos was (and still is) a good idea. It's still the best fire resistant material we have.

Personally, I'd rather be in a tall building protected with properly contained asbestos than I would in one with any of the inferior alternatives. Had the WTC been fireproofed with asbestos all the way up, it most likely would have survived the 9/11 attacks....it certainly would have lasted hours longer, time enough to evacuate thousands more people.

The risks from asbestos fibers are incredibly small. There are counties in California that have asbestos fiber counts in the air and water dozens of times above EPA "safe" levels, due to the natural asbestos found in the area. And even unprotected asbestos miners -- who breathe in fiber levels many millions of times higher than your average person -- live many decades before developing problems.

In other words, the benefits for the safe and proper use of asbestos far outweigh the risks. Just like nanotechnology. But asking an environmentalist to put logic ahead of emotion is like asking a pig to give up the slop trough.

Did you seriously just bring 9/11 into an "argument" caused by an offhanded comment about the possible carcinogenic properties of nano-technology? Obviously, asking you to put logic in front of emotion is like asking a pig to give up a dated analogy. Put your flag down, Ted, it's time to get off the internet and go talk to your gold broker.

I think he has an honest concern that deserves, at least, a passing glance.

Did you seriously miss the original referent to asbestos? The WTC was being constructed during the height of the anti-asbestos craze...as a result, construction crews stopped spraying asbestos fireproofing beyond the 64th floor. At the time of the decision, experts from the world's largest fireproofing company said, "if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, the tower will fall".

The 9/11 attacks struck at the 96th and the 87 floors. The original asbestos fireproofing was rated to withstand at least four hours of heat at that level. We don't know exactly how long the inferior replacement material lasted -- but the first tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

I thought the explosion from the impact to the WTC towers blew off any fire protection above the floors. Even without asbestos above level # the designers didn't plan for a plane of that size and fuel to crash into it. They designed for older/smaller aircraft impact and standard office fires.It's impossible to be protected from every attack that may happen in the next 50 years. They will always find a way, eventually.

A good example of emotion over logic would be deriding someone for simply referencing 9/11 in order to make a perfectly valid point. Should the loss of life make it so touchy a subject that we can't even learn from it??

"Those who cannot learn from history (even recent history), are doomed to repeat it."

It takes decades (not years) for them to develop the cancer in the first place....and even among miners who breathe in levels concentrated many millions of times higher than would a normal person, the majority of them live their entire lives without ever developing mesothelioma.

OTOH, the prosecution of asbestos-related exposure cases is now by far the single largest source of funds to tort attorneys, who have succesfully extorted tens of billion of dollars from private firms, many of which have little or no tangible connection with asbestos production.

In the last month alone, I've been accused of working for the asbestos, nuclear, banking, and oil industries...as well as being a shill for Microsoft and even Apple. I suppose I should take it as a compliment.

Why not learn to think rationally, instead of making these ridiculous emotional appeals? Life's a lot more interesting when you actually use your brain.

quote: I had wondered about the number of posts too. Either a fair amount of time available, or just damn smart [to think logically and communicate at that level, that fast].

Using basic logic and communicating it quickly is not that complicated for someone who puts in some effort to learn the basics of logic. Once the basics of logic are understood, arguments can easily be made from there and done well. An example is my brother spent quite a bit of time in debate classes. As such, he can argue with just about anyone extremely effectively and following the proper rules of logic. Couple this basic understanding with an above average intellect and access to the Internet and you get that. There are plenty of people who are able to do similar things while online. They are not gods or anything of that nature, merely intelligent people with access to instant information. Chances are his job sucks (I was in that situation years ago) and therefore the free time during the day skyrockets because an idle mind tends to wander (especially for the more intelligent).

This of course is not to take away from his abilities, he is quite well versed in logic, my post was merely a ribbing.

It wasn't the inferior properties of the fire retardent material that downed the towers, it was that the fire retardent materials were blown off by the explosion of the aircraft and jet fuel. No material could have remained adhered under those conditions.